For the
reasons stated below, the Court will allow the motion for
waiver of service fees, dismiss parties no longer named in
the action, dismiss sua sponte portions of the
amended complaint, and issues summonses as to all of the
defendants as to the remainder of the claims set forth in the
amended complaint.

I.
Introduction

On
October 12, 2016, the Court ordered the plaintiff to file an
amended complaint. ECF No. 9. On November 18, 2016, plaintiff
timely filed an amended complaint, reducing the number of
defendants and claims. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff now brings six
counts against defendants Carol Higgins-O'Brien, Lisa
Mitchell, Douglas Bower, Michael Devine, John F. Camelo,
Scott J. Steever, Marta Leon, Neil Norcliffe, and Todd
Derbyshire. Along with his amended complaint, plaintiff filed
a motion for waiver of service fees. ECF No. 18.

II.
Discussion

A.
Plaintiff's Motion for Waiver of Service
Fees

Upon
review of plaintiff's previous financial affidavits and
his prison account statements, ECF Nos. 2 and 8, this Court
finds that plaintiff has insufficient funds in his prison
personal account to pay the cost of service. Accordingly,
plaintiff's motion for waiver of service fees, ECF No.
18, is ALLOWED, but only to the extent that fees for
service of the amended complaint and summonses by the U.S.
Marshal Service are advanced as set forth in this Order.

B.
Preliminary Screening of the Amended
Complaint

Plaintiff
has paid the $400 filing fee. ECF No. 16. Because plaintiff
is a prisoner, his complaint is subject to screening pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A authorizes the Court
to review prisoner complaints in civil actions in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, or
officers or employees of a governmental entity, and to
dismiss the action regardless of whether or not the plaintiff
has paid the filing fee, if the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In connection
with this preliminary screening, plaintiff's pro
se amended complaint is construed generously. Hughes
v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Instituto de
Educacion Universal Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Education,
209 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2000).

It is
well-settled that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in
federal courts against an unconsenting state brought by its
own citizens as well as by citizens of another state.
Pennhurst State Sch.& Hosp. v. Halderman, 465
U.S. 89, 100 (1984). As an additional matter, the Eleventh
Amendment also extends to confer immunity from suit upon
state officials when “the State is the real substantial
party in interest, ” that is, when “the judgment
sought would expend itself on the public treasury . . ., or
interfere with the public administration . . . . ”
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 465 U.S. at
101-102, n. 11; see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (although state officials
are literally persons, a suit against a state official in his
official capacity is not a suit against the official but
rather is a suit against the official's office). To the
extent that plaintiff seeks monetary relief from Carol
Higgins-O'Brien, Lisa Mitchell, Douglas Bower, Michael
Devine, John F. Camelo, Scott J. Steever, Marta Leon on these
counts for actions taken in his or her “official”
capacity, the claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C.
§1983. Accordingly, all claims against defendants Carol
Higgins-O'Brien, Lisa Mitchell, Douglas Bower, Michael
Devine, John F. Camelo, Scott J. Steever, Marta Leon only for
monetary damages for actions taken in their official
capacities in Counts I, II, and IV and are
DISMISSED. Plaintiff's remaining
official capacity claims against defendants Neil
Norcliffe, and Todd Derbyshire and individual
capacity claims against all defendants on these counts are
not dismissed. See Leavitt v. Correctional
Medical Services, Inc.645 F.3d 484, 504 and n.30 (2011)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C.
Summonses shall Issue as to the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.